About this Show

Piers Morgan Live

News/Business. (2013)

NETWORK
CNN

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Virtual Ch. 759 (CNN HD)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Israel 14, Us 13, Colorado 7, United States 6, Syria 6, U.s. 5, America 5, Newtown 4, Blackberry 4, Harry Reid 4, Adam Lanza 4, Dianne Feinstein 4, John King 3, Mitchell 3, Feinstein 3, Netanyahu 3, Lifelock 3, Angie 3, Piers 3, Jerusalem 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CNN    Piers Morgan Live    News/Business.  (2013)  

    March 21, 2013
    12:00 - 1:00am PDT  

12:00am
♪ ♪ twith blackberry hub10 and flick typing. built to keep you moving. see it in action at blackberry.com/z10.
12:01am
12:02am
tonight, outrage, 2,793 americans dead in gun violence since newtown. and harry reid says this about the assault weapons ban. >> i'm not going to try to put something on the floor that won't succeed. the worst of all worlds would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there. >> the men who have seen the tragic toll of guns up close. they're demanding change. i talked to police chiefs from newtown and all around the area about what they saw that tragedy crick day and what it will take to keep america's children safe from further massacres much. plus, president obama, tensions rising throughout the region. is iran now the greatest threat? >> our policy is to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. >> will syria's civil war spill over? >> assad's regime must understand they will be held accountable for the use of
12:03am
chemical weapons or their transfer to terrorists. >> the president's one-time middle east peacemaking. is now the time to kiss and make up? this is "piers morgan live". you've heard a lot of heated debate on this show on both sides. tonight i'm going to talk to five men who probably know more than most of us about guns and in particular the aftermath of the atrocity of newtown. they're police chiefs in and around newtown. all of them having experience and trauma of that terrible day at sandy hook elementary school. sadly, the toll of guns doesn't end there. tom clements was gunned down in the doorway of his home last night, hours before governor john hicken loafer signed new gun control legislation. plus, something special tonight.
12:04am
we conduct an informal account of u.s. senators asking whether or not they would have supported dianne feinstein's proposed ban on assault weapons. the numbers are not official and in some cases the answer wasn't quite as simple as a yes or no but we will give you those results in a few moments. i now want to turn to my panel of police chiefs in newtown,. chief montgomery of brookfield. first i'll read the names of the 35 senators who so far have told us that they oppose senator feinstein's assault weapons bill. it's important to know who they are. senators alexander, ayotte, baucus, beg yich, boozeman, burr, coburn, cochran, crapo, cruz, donnelly, enzi, flake, graham, grassley, hatch, heightcamp, who'ven, inhofe, ice
12:05am
okayson, joe hance, johnson, king, lee, manchin, mccain, risch, roberts, rubio, shelby, wicker. and we have three late responses of no from landreau, murkowski and murray. those are the 35 senators so far who have told us, no, they oppose senator feinstein's proposed bill to ban assault weapons. 28 senators said yes, they agree with and support it. 34, no responses so far. and three said they had no position. we're going to chase the 34 no responses, and the three who say no position. and we'll come back on friday, give them enough time to think about their response so quick get a very firm idea of why this assault weapons ban has apparently got no chance of getting passed in the senate. you as the american people have a right to know what these
12:06am
senators believe, and i intend to get it out of them. let's turn now to the police chiefs. i can't think of five better people to talk to about what happened. ever since just over three months ago now. let me start with you if i may, chief. because you had the -- i don't even think there are the words to describe the experience of what you must have gone through that day. you had to walk into that school and find the bodies of 26 people, including 20 young school children between 6 and 7 years old who had been slaughtered by adam lanza and his ar-15 assault rifle. take me back to that day. for those who perhaps have already moved on, who don't think it was a tipping point in this debate. what did you see that day, what do you feel about it now? what do you think needs to be done? >> well, it was a horrific day. there's no doubt about it. it was a horrific day for so many.
12:07am
not only the families who we really do cherish, but it was a horrific day for our community and for the nation as a whole. that day will be etcheded in my mind, will forever change me. and i think that as i reflect today about that day, as much as i try to forget about it, i just can't. and i know that will give me the energy to move forward, and to hopefully make change, in our society that we need. >> michael moore, the film maker, was on my show last night and got very passionate and emotional as many of the debates on the show have been since sandy hook. he believes that the only way the american people will feel compelled to force that political powers in washington to do anything about this is to perhaps see the pictures. of the bodies of these children. and he cited the example in the race battles and in vietnam, where imagery, however horrific, has changed american public opinion. you saw not just pictures.
12:08am
you saw what happened there. do you think that there's any merit to that argument? do you think that if america had seen what you saw there would be any doubt about banning assault weapons? >> i think it may help. but law enforcement's position from day one has been to protect the families. and they have suffered enough. and to release some pictures like that may make them suffer more. and we have to talk about the families collectively. we just can't think of one, maybe, and say it's okay and we have 19 or 20 or 25 others that don't feel it's okay. i don't think that's going to work either. so i don't think we're ever going to get the full range of acceptance to releasing pictures. but i think everybody can understand, as you aptly put, the slaughter that an ar-15 can do to a 6 or-year-old. we don't need pictures to know that. i think in our own minds, we can certainly imagine it. and that should be our driving force.
12:09am
>> chief pucks, you had, i think two children who attended sandy hook school. they no longer attend the school. they attend another newtown school, just -- from age point of view. for you it must have been a very, very harrowing experience again, simply because this could have been your children. >> it was. and to be honest, when i was responding, we didn't know at first to which school we were responding. we heard the radio calls coming over the air. immediately my first reaction was it's going to be the high school. and that's where i thought i was heading. when i heard it was an elementary school, i don't think it ever really processed that i was going into a school where the kids who would be that young who were going to be affected by this. >> there's lots of debate going on about what the best response should be. the latest polls suggest that 57% of americans are in favor of a national ban on the sale of assault weapons. and on party lines, 77% of those were democrats.
12:10am
and yet it's the democratic senators who are leading the charge, perhaps, in preventing an assault weapons ban coming in. you, i believe, are supportive of an assault weapons ban. why is it so important that there should be one? >> you know, i heard the president say they deserve a vote. and he was speaking about the newtown families. i've heard others say they deserve a voice. i'd like to suggest that we deserve a chance. we in law enforcement know that when an active shooter reloads, that's an opportunity for us to move. that's an opportunity for us to try to neutralize that threat. we in law enforcement know that when an active shooter has to reload, that's an opportunity for people in public to try to overpower that individual, and try to get away. and we in law enforcement know that in a school setting, when an active shooter has to reload, that's an opportunity or that's a chance for our kids to run. and i really believe we deserve that chance.
12:11am
>> and with adam lanza, he had taken enough ammunition to kill more than 600 children which would have taken out i think the entire school. he just in the end to feel law enforcement arriving and took his own life. if they hadn't got there in time, he could have killed many, many more. >> we know that our presence makes a difference. our presence in and around schools either deters it or when we show up, usually the individual chooses to take their own life rather than challenge us. so we know that makes a difference. but for law enforcement officers going into that environment, having to deal with some someone with a 30, 40, 50-round magazine, that puts them in needless harm's way. so by eliminating that capacity, people still have the right to fire those weapons. we just have a better opportunity, a better chance, to really neutralize that threat. >> chief goddette, you live in newtown, i believe. >> i do. >> the argument -- you would have heard this many times. is there any attempt to prohibit the sale of ar-15s, one of the most popular rifles in the
12:12am
country, is an satellite on the second amendment rights of americans. what do you say to that? >> i respect the second amendment. i believe that people should have the right to own weapons. i think that the assault weapon in particular is a weapon of war. and i don't believe necessarily that anyone, other than police or military, should own a weapon like that. it puts my people in danger and great jeopardy. it puts the citizenry in great jeopardy. i reject the notion that it's a sporting rifle. i believe it's a weapon of war and intended to kill as many people as efficiently and effectively as possible. >> chief montgomery and chief riddenour -- chief montgomery, in your case, you're a brookfield police chief, incredibly highly decorated vietnam -- two purple hearts, am i right? >> yes, sir. >> nobody needs to tell you about guns or indeed the military comparison. and yet both of you, i think, do not support an assault weapons ban. explain to me why with all your
12:13am
experience you don't think it would be effective. >> i think what doug mentioned regarding the ability to fire 30, 50 rounds at a clip is what we want to inhibit. we want to make sure that doesn't occur. and i think by limiting the magazine rounds, that resolves at least one issue. one of the things that bothers me is that when you have a tragedy like this, people focus on one particular element. and really, it's a far more holistic approach to what ails this country right now wh the violence you see, the gun violence, the violent videos. and that's why when you talk to mike about pictures being shown, i would venture to say kids have seen so much violence via tv, video games, they have become immune to it. and that's been documented. so that's a problem. i think that we as a society
12:14am
have to change. >> chief riddenour, the other elements of this involve universal background checks. we discussed the magazine sizes. of the three planks, really, of what dianne feinstein is trying to push through, assault weapons, background checks, and the magazine, which do you feel strongly about? >> background checks. >> why? >> i think the background checks are very important. not only for the individuals that are trying to possess weapons, but also to find out more about what's going on in their homes. i mean, when you look at this situation, apparently the mother was a law-abiding citizen who did have proper permits to have weaponry. but there was issues within the home and her son got ahold of these weapons. >> by the way, adam lanza, until he committed this atrocity, was also a law-abiding citizen. my problem with this is an argument from the gun lobby, if
12:15am
you like, they keep saying what about the law-abiding gun owners? his mother was and actually he was until he did this. he didn't have a criminal record. but what would have picked him up? a loner living with his mother. i don't know how you would pick him up. all you can do, i would argue, with great respect to you guys, who oppose the assault weapons ban, you've got to make it as difficult as possible for people like adam lanza out there -- now, there was one -- two days ago in florida. who was about to shoot up a university. again, a misfit, a loner. somebody, though, who was able to acquire 1,000 rounds of ammunition. assault weapons, handguns, educational dvds to teach him how to use this stuff. this cannot be right in a civilized society. >> first of all, piers, it's not that i oppose the ban. what i do support is a more healthy debate about the ban, and whatever our legislature, whether state or federal, comes out with, i will support.
12:16am
i'm not a gun person, personally. but i do believe that all sides of the issue need to be focused on and there's other issues that need to be addressed also. mental health checks, access for us. that would be part of the background process. having mental health checks to find out if there's issues within the home. knowing who has these types of weapons. another thing that concerns me is when someone does die who does have weapons. but we're not notified that there are weapons in the home. who takes possession of those weapons for the short term until it's decided who they should go to? then they end up on the streets. so those are the things that i'm concerned about. and i just think that we have to have a really thorough debate about the issue. >> i thoroughly agree with that. and this is a very constructive one, by the way, i think fascinating. stay where you are, chiefs. we'll come back with a colorado sheriff who is joining us, says he won't enforce new laws in his state requiring universal background checks. 34 haven't responded as yet.
12:17am
three have no position. as we go to the break. here are the 28 in the senate who have come out in support of the bill to us, to our show. and just one note. we're going to keep going back to those who haven't responded and update you probably on friday. enough time to work out if they want to tell us. [ male announcer ] at his current pace, bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire.
12:18am
but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. >> announcer: you never know when, but thieves can steal your identity and turn your life upside down. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock to relentlessly protect what matters most... [beeping...] helping stop crooks before your identity is attacked. and now you can have the most comprehensive identity theft protection available today... lifelock ultimate. so for protection you just can't get anywhere else, get lifelock ultimate.
12:19am
>> i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring is not enough, because it tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 30 days later. with lifelock, as soon as our network spots a threat to your identity, you'll get a proactive risk alert, protecting you before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands--
12:20am
a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you act right now. call the number on your screen now! colorado governor john hickenlooper signed new gun control laws requiring universal background checks which buyers must bay for themselves and limiting rounds to 15 rounds. this sheriff says he won't enforce these laws and is here to tell me why. also our expert panel, five
12:21am
police chiefs from the newtown area. welcome, sheriff. tell me why you are not going to implement these laws. >> well, good evening, mr. morgan. i believe that the lays as they are written are basically unenforceable and that philosophy is viewed by about 57 of colorado's 62 elected sheriffs. i just think that, for instance, there's no way for me to know that a magazine is in possession of an individual we come in contact, was acquired before or after the ban. and i don't believe that a magazine capacity limitation will solve the problems we're facing with just about 15 minutes of practice, sir, i could have you -- you're doing a magazine exchange, in about two seconds. so the mass shooters could still fire the same number of rounds with only a limited extra number of seconds.
12:22am
>> right. but with respect, mr. sheriff, you're in a state, which has just brought in these laws. and one of the reasons they brought them in was what happened at that movie theater in aurora in colorado. where a deranged young man called holmes walked in and had four weapons, including assault rifles, and including 100 bullet magazines. now, you can't tell me that he could not have been stopped earlier if he hadn't had a magazine with 100 bullets in. and that's the point of this, isn't it? >> well, certainly, on the surface, it is. but, again, let's say he had just had ten-round magazines. he's making a magazine exchanges in a matter of two seconds. again, with just a little bit of practice. i don't know -- and, again, you know, i can't monday morning quarterback that. so i don't know what the crowd at the theater was doing. i got the impression they were simply trying to take cover or flee, and didn't seem to be
12:23am
concerned about stopping the shooter. >> okay. let me go to chief kia. you've heard this. this is to me an extraordinary situation where you have a state that suffered the single-worst shooting by one shooter in terms of hitting people. he hit 70 people and killed 12 of them. in american history, and as a result, they brought in -- i applaud them for doing this. they brought in some to me obvious new laws to try and do something about this. and you've got a sheriff that's saying not only he, but the vast majority of the sheriffs in the state want nothing to do with it. >> yeah. i think what sheriff is saying is that he feels the law is unenforceable as opposed to he's not going to enforce oh the law. i think there is a distinction there. i don't think -- >> let me clarify that. sheriff, are you saying you're not going to even try and enforce the law? >> mr. morgan, again, i don't think that there'sny ability for i or my officers or other officers armed around the state to determine if a magazine that comes into our inspection was acquired before or after the
12:24am
ban. >> i heard that. but to clarify, because the chief has raised this as a question. you are not even going to try then to enforce this law. you don't think it's workable at all. >> that is correct. >> okay. so you have a sheriff there, and he says he represents the vast majority of sheriffs who is not even going to implement this. these new laws are therefore rendered almost instantly meaningless. in a state that had the aurora theater massacre. i mean, you may as well give up. the front page of the "new york daily news." shame on us, it says. with the pictures of these children that you saw, you saw their slaughtered bodies. there's got to be a better response than just sheriffs all over america saying, nope. i'm not going to do anything. >> i'm wondering -- again, i'm not aware of the colorado laws passed today. or whenever they were signed into law. but maybe what needs to be is they need to relook at that and maybe they need some input from
12:25am
the sheriffs to make the laws enforceable. and one -- certainly all officers can can enforce instead of having to think about what's the interpretation of the law. >> chief, we talked about magazine sizes. at sandy hook, had he had 100 bullet magazine, he could have killed a lot more in the same period of time, right? >> and you're right. >> this is an inarguable fact. >> there's two issues, one is one my colleague in colorado is speaking. that two seconds makes a difference. that two seconds is an opportunity. that two seconds is a chance. and we know that in law enforcement. that protects civilians and protects our officers. and gives them a better or fighting chance when in harm's way. i think the other point, as chief keo raises. if that law is enforceable, we as law enforcement officers of a county or municipality, we take an oath to uphold the law. >> that's what i was going to ask you, sheriff.
12:26am
you have a duty. it's not really your decision, is it? you have a duty, if this is the law of the state of colorado, you're a sheriff, you have a sworn duty to try and uphold that law. and i would also like you to answer the point, if it saves one life of one child in a future mass shooting in your state, even in the area that you're the sheriff, isn't it worth it? >> if i thought that was the fact, yes, sir. i don't think that's the case. >> you've just heard a police chief in connecticut say it's an inarguable fact. clearly, it is. if you have to spend a few seconds changing clips, you have a chance. you have a chance to apprehend that person. you have a chance to try and save life. that's the point of this -- of this magazine reduction. law. that's the point of it. >> yes, sir, it is. i just don't agree with it. >> and i respect that. but what i'm asking you is, do you not think if it could save one life, it's worth doing?
12:27am
what is the down side? who gets hurt? if you bring in a 15-round maximum? who is offended by that? hunters and sports shooters don't need anything more than that. that's not hunting. who is going to miss 30, 40, 50 bullet magazines? >> i think there's a major concern which i concur with. that this it is based on looking at history for the last 100 years, is that proverbial foot of the door. that it's a 15-round magazine today, it's a ten-round magazine tomorrow. and a no magazine a year from now. >> chief, now i can see -- chief, you're shaking your head. what do you say to that? >> i see that it's our responsibility to enforce the law, whatever it is. and it's not for us to really look at the reasons behind it. we have elected officials who give us laws, give us mandates to enforce. and that's what we're supposed to do.
12:28am
>> and this idea that it may be a slippery slope to further reductions, you know, you can cross that bridge when you come to it. but, you know, as the daily news front page says, shame on america if the answer is nothing. surely. i'm so grateful to you all. thank you all for coming in. you've come in together, and you've made a serious of excellent points. this debate will continue to rage. sheriff, i appreciate you coming on. i know that you are aware of my position on this and i respect your opinion. i don't agree with it. you don't agree with mine. but we'll agree to defer and i do appreciate you taking the time to come on. >> mr. morgan, thank you. coming up next, civil war in syria. nuclear threat in iran. will president obama's visit to israel calm the storm in the middle east? fore you book it, and i got a great deal without bidding. and where's your furry friend? oh, i don't have a cat. now you can save up to
12:29am
50% during priceline's spring hotel sale use promo code spring for additional savings on all express deals, including pet friendly hotels. express deals. priceline savings without the bidding.
12:30am
12:31am
been waiting for the price then hurry, sleep train's beautyrest and posturepedic closeout sale ends sunday. save up to 40% on closeout sets from beautyrest and posturepedic. save hundreds on floor samples and closeout inventory. these prices are falling fast, but these deals won't last. sleep train's beautyrest and posturepedic closeout sale ends sunday. superior service, best selection, lowest price, guaranteed. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪
12:32am
i did inform the prime minister that they are very good-looking young men who clearly got their looks from their mother. >> well, i can say the same of your daughters. >> this is true. our goal is to improve our gene pool by mary rying women who are better than we are. >> a joke to start. he bet with prime minister
12:33am
netanyahu and called the u.s. and the jewish state unbreakable. mr. obama also covered big foreign policy issues including the iranian threat and the civil war in syria. cnn's john king is live in jerusalem with the latest. john, all seemed very maty and chummy. but underneath all that, what is the reality of the state of the relationship between america and israel right now? >> reporter: there's no question, piers, obvious to the world, not just to these two leaders, they've had a frosty and unfriendly relationship. president obama is left of center, believes the prime minister netanyahu has said some things he finds insulting or didn't like. prime minister netanyahu right of center, supported romney in the last presidential election, has at times stopped at president obama, my language, doesn't get it. both of these guys just won elections. they are in the words of a top american official the other day, stuck with each other. and it's very crystal clear today, both of them have decided to try to turn a new page.
12:34am
are they going to be best friends, i think not. but are they going to be better friends? today it appeared they're going to at least try at that. and that makes a difference. when you're dealing with the iran nuclear crisis, the syria civil crisis, the question of whether you can get the palestinians and the israelis back on the table. if they like each other a bit more, it helps when things get difficult. and that's a difficult list. >> people assume that iran may be overshadowing this trip, in a sense, syria has overtaken even iran because of the suggestion that chemical weapons have been used, both sides trying to blame the other side. what do we really know about what may have happened here? >> reporter: not much. which is part of the issue. the president used some very muscular language today at the press conference with the prime minister, saying it would be a game-changer if he sees conclusive evidence that the regime used chemical weapons against its own people. now he didn't specify how the game would change. does that mean any use of the united states' military? the president has been very reluctant to do that and i don't know anybody in the
12:35am
administration talking about that. does it just mean pushing for war crimes, tribunals, going back to the united nations? i don't know what purpose that would serve. so we don't know what he means. but he did say he will look at the facts and see what happens. and one of the -- part of the assistance he will get, excuse me, is from the israeli military. i'm in jerusalem tonight, piers. the united states is 6,000 miles from syria. i'm 135 miles from damascus. so the israelis have a history of having better intelligence, if you will, of that neighborhood. >> stay with me. i'm going to bring in george mitchell mitchell, former u.s. special envoy to the middle east. mr. mitchell, when you see what's going on here, what is your overview of the region in totality? it used to be a case, if you solved the israeli-palestine problem, everything would be so much easier. now there is so much tension all over the region, it's no longer just about israel and palestine, is it? >> reporter: no, it isn't. that's an important element, but there are many intersecting
12:36am
conflicts in the region, all of which affect each other. you mentioned several of them. sear yeah, the iranian quest for a nuclear weapon. the historic antagonism between the persian iranians and the arab countries. the historic divide within islam between sunni and shia, which began way back from the succession of the prophet -- to the prophet mohammed. so there are many conflicts. but i will say that a resolution of the israeli palestinian conflicts, while not the only problem, will help in dealing with several of the others. it will help israel to have to change from what it now does as building walls all around it to establish normalization in the region, which i think would be very important, and a positive step for the people in society of israel. so the president really, i think, is trying to assure or reach three audiences. the people of israel, wherefor uncommitted to israel's
12:37am
security, absolutely committed. the palestinians, we want a palestinian state, a two-state solution. and others in the region, friend and foe alike, that the united states is in the region to stay, and we're not pulling out any time soon. >> john king, the one thing we didn't hear about today was settlements. why is that, and is that going to be discussed over the next couple of days? >> reporter: well, it will be discussed in the morning. you can be syrian, piers, when president obama goes to see mahmud abbas, his top complaint, i'm not coming back to the bargaining table until israel stops building settlements in the west bank. and i'm interested in senator mitchell's views on this. i was in two israeli settlements. there is construction on both settlements right now. not major expansions but new subdivisions. and the israeli government is debating whether to have the green light for a major new settlement on a parcel called e-1. and president obama did not mention settlements.
12:38am
there are a couple opportunities today where he could have turned to his counterpart and said you must stop. he has said that in the past. i'm sure it came up in the private conversation. but the president decided not to pick a public fight with the prime minister. but that is one of the huge obstacles to getting the palestinians back to the bargaining table. >> right. senator mitchell, you heard what john said there. how crucial is this going to be, this part of the debate? >> yeah. it's a very important part of it. let's be clear. every american president since israel was created has opposed israeli settlement construction. democrat and republican alike. no president has ever supported continued expansion of settlements. at the same time, we in israel are close friends and allies. we don't agree on every issue. and that's one on which we disagree. i think john is correct. i'm certain the president has raised it in private. he will certainly hear it from the palestinians. my own view is, the best thing everybody can do is get into negotiations and try to resolve all of the issues, including
12:39am
settlements. >> finally, senator, switch quickly to guns, if i may. because yesterday we saw harry reid basically kiboshing any attempt for dianne feinstein's assault weapons ban to be included on this gun control bill. you were voted the most respected man in the senate many times in your career there. what do you make of this? i mean, do you not think they should -- at the very least be pushing forward to a vote so everyone can see who is in favor and who is against? >> i don't know all of the issues, because i don't follow them in nearly as much detail as when i myself was there. but i was senate majority leader when senator feinstein pushed the assault weapons ban, and i helped her do so, and voted for it. i thought it made sense then. i think it makes sense now. but i think as you are finding out, piers, in your questioning of all senators, there is not even a majority for it, let alone the 60 votes who would be
12:40am
necessary in the senate to pass it. >> well -- >> so when you face -- >> what i'm finding, to clarify, we've got about 35 who have said yes, we oppose it. but there's at least the same again who are at the moment not responding. and that in itself, i think, speaks volumes. i think some of them do not want to be exposed for perhaps putting their political careers over their principle. >> well, there's absolutely no doubt about that. and they're letting harry reid know that. the leader, one of his functions and tasks is to be a lightning rod and take the heat for others. and there's no doubt that harry reid has been told by many senators, don't bring it to a vote. you don't have the votes, and so what point will be served then, and you're going to hurt me in my next election. that's a reality that's occurred for the 225 years that the united states senate has existed or whatever the length of time is. nothing new about that, piers. but you're also finding out, you've got 28 votes for, 35 votes against.
12:41am
and i think that the rest of the votes you get to the extent that you can get a decision, will be probably even more weighted against. and so i think it's a very tough situation for all concerned. as i said, i don't know all the details. my own view is, i think an -- i believe an assault weapons ban is justified, and would serve a useful purpose. to the argument made earlier on your show about the camel's nose under the tent or the slippery slope, if you limit the magazines to 15 rounds now, then it will be 10, then it will be 5, then it will be none. the fact is, of course, we have all kinds of laws prohibiting certain weapons. you can't go out and buy a bazooka. you can't go out and buy a machine gun. you can't go out and buy a bong. and so the reality is, if you bought that argument, you would say, open it all up. let them -- let's have any weapon being purchased. that can't be the case. i mean, you have to make a rational decision based on
12:42am
circumstances which exist at that time. will a measure help or oh hurt? that's the judgment. there are good people on both sides of the issue. i think, though, it won't pass. that's pretty clear. >> senator mitchell and john king, thank you both very much indeed. >> thank you. coming next, talking about the president's trip to israel. whether there is any chance for a peace settlement. hey. they're coming. yeah. british. later. sorry. ok...four words... scarecrow in the wind... a baboon... monkey? hot stew saturday!? ronny: hey jimmy, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? jimmy: happier than paul revere with a cell phone. ronny: why not? anncr: get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
12:43am
12:44am
u
12:45am
12:46am
talking about a lasting peace is one thing. making it happen with the palestinians is another. can the president do what others have not. we have allen dush wits, attorney and author and president of the arab american institute and author of "arab voices." start with you, allen der shallwits. will israel and arab nations ever live in peace? yes, 32%. no, 66%. very depressing. what is a way through this? are you remotely optimistic? >> i am very optimistic. it depends what you mean by peace. will there ever be a loving peace like between the united states and canada, unlikely. but will there be an end of war the way there is with egypt and the way there is with jordan and
12:47am
perhaps realistically with some other surrounding countries, yes. the key is to start the negotiations now. i agree completely with senator george mitchell. what president abbas and the palestinian authority is saying, i'm not going to come to the bargaining table unless you do a, b and c. he's not in a position to make those kinds of demands. he wants land, he wants estate. he has to sit down to negotiate. i recently met with him and i made a proposal. i said, how about you sit down, begin the negotiations, and then israel will start a freeze, and then you'll negotiate borders. he seemed to agree with that. netanyahu seems to be agreeing with that. there is an opening for peace. i hope the president will try to bring them closer together. look, the palestinians had an opportunity to have a state, 2000, 2001. arafat turned it down. prime minister owe meter offered them more in 2007. no response. the ball is clearly in the palestinian court. >> okay.
12:48am
>> they must come to the negotiating table. >> let's go to james. the ball is in the palestinian court. do you agree with that? >> no, i don't. i think that's a very serious exaggeration. of the leverage palestinians have. they really have none in this case. and they looked to the u.s. president to balance the scale. at this point, abbas has a u.n. resolution, about the only thing he has in his camp. he has no -- he's become a dependency, dependent upon foreign aid to sustain an ever-dwindling authority. they have become a police force governing the terrorists. allen, let me finish. they have become a police force governing the territories. but they've gotten no payment back. and this issue is bigger than the west bank. it's about palestinian nationhood, about the right of palestinians to have the same respect as a nation that israel demands for itself. and frankly, that's not on the table. i would say to you that what the u.s. has to do, when the
12:49am
president is done with this trip, come back, hopefully earning the confidence of the israeli people, trying to restore some confidence on the palestinian side, which is lost right now. and then refashion a middle east peace initiative that gives some hope to both sides. right now palestinians don't feel hope at all. >> okay. let me ask you both very quickly and i'll start with you, james zogby, very quickly, if i may. are you optimistic within five years there could be a peace deal? >> well, we did a poll on that. and what we found is that palestinians themselves are hopeful that in five years a peace deal could be done. i, on the other, look at the politics of it. i don't see the israeli society moving in the direction of peace. i don't see congress here in the united states giving the president the backup he needs to push for peace. they slapped him down very hard in 2011. it was insulting to the united states. and it hurt the chances for peace. so i would be rather sanguine. >> pessimistic.
12:50am
>> i would love to see it happen, but i think it's tough. >> okay. allen? >> well, if the palestinians sit down and negotiate, the israelis will make a very generous offer as they did in 2000 and 2001 and 2007. it's up to the palestinians to come to the negotiating table. you're not going to get peace without negotiation. you're not going to get it through the u.n. you're not going to get it through the international criminal court. you're not going to get it through violence and terrorism. you're going to get it with negotiations. will everybody be happy with the resolution? of course not. will the palestinians get 100%, no, they won't get the 67 borders, that would include the jewish section of jerusalem. both sides have to negotiate, and compromise. but you can't compromise until you negotiate. so my message to the palestinians is, please, come sit down to the negotiating table. netanyahu has offered that. >> sounds good, allen. but the two israeli leaders who made an offer in 2001 and 2007 were on their way out of office and had nothing to lose by making a deal they never could
12:51am
fulfill. >> try it again. >> i'm going to leave it there. as winston churchill said, always better to george war than war war. thank you both very much indeed. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> when we come back, i'm going to talk to a man who created an addiction for me. it's this. a blackberry. i'm addicted. but are you? or are you is addicted to the blackberry. or are you addicted to apple or samsung? no, no, no! stop! humans. one day we're coming up with the theory of relativity, the next... not so much. but that's okay -- you're covered with great ideas like optional better car replacement from liberty mutual insurance. total your car and we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. learn about it at libertymutual.com. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?
12:52am
glass on floors. daily chores. for the little mishaps you feel use neosporin to help you heal. it kills germs so you heal four days faster. neosporin. use with band-aid brand bandages.
12:53am
12:54am
12:55am
we said earlier senator murray was opposed to dianne feinstein's assault weapons bill. millions of users worldwide, blackberry is giving apple and samsung a run for their money. now they're hoping to take a bigger slice out of the smart phone market with the release of their new device. i'm a well known blackberry crack addict. and i'm still hanging on in here. i'm going to lay my cards on the table to you there. my two teenaged sons recently defected from the blackberries that i had lovingly given them to iphone, how are you going to stop the migration, which has been going on for quite some time of your product to apple and indeed to samsung and
12:56am
android? >> the way we stop it, we have built a new exciting product. it's the first product of its kind. let's give it to your sons. >> these are the ones -- this is the one which is an iphone rival. the reviews have been pretty good for it. have they been spectacular enough? are you concerned that this may already be being overtaken with technology by some of your rivals. is it that fast in the marketplace? >> the innovation is very, very fast, and ferocious, that's why we did innovative products. the user interface works with the ebb and flow is designed for people that are hyperconnected, multitaskers, gamers, that's why we did the slick typing on the keyboard as well. >> that is cool. and the keyboard is very cool.
12:57am
which is something i always love about blackberries and the hub idea is cool. you said the iphone is outdated. did you mean that? or were you hoping they're outdated? >> no, i think they are falling behind in terms of the user interface. you have this in and out paradigm. you open up, you flow. you open everything. on ours and with the flick of your thumb you move. >> i see a lot of business in an hour. a lot of them have blackberries. i saw p. diddy the other day, he only had a silver. i said, you're so last year, diddy. we have a crowd of people that like your devices. i see a lot of business people, senior level who have gone, gone for other places. what is the single best way you are going do hook them back? >> the single best way is to use
12:58am
the interface we talk about. the second is the physical keypad keypad. the third thing is, keep the private life and business life separate on one device, not make them carry two devices, what we see, people latch on to this pretty well and nicely. we see a trend from people coming back or new to blackberry. >> i'm a big fan. i once did a promotion for you. it wasn't that successful, it wasn't up to me. i do love the blackberry. i like them. good to see you. >> thank you very much, piers. tomorrow night, we have tom hanks and the cast of "lucky guy." first ever play on broadway, and his first play in 30 years. about who to hire without going to angie's list first. you'll find reviews on home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. with angie's list, i know who to call, and i know the results will be fantastic.
12:59am
angie's list -- reviews you can trust.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)